Do you find you are more succesful on certain sites than others ?

I have recently been having a very good time on T6poker and Rosso Poker.

And its got me wondering why I seem to do better on those sites than others.

I go onto Doyles room and I cannot ever get anywhere. No matter what I do I always crash and burn dismally, yet on the likes of Rosso I always end up going deep and I get into the money on a regular basis.

Likewise, and this is really strange, I play better on VC than I do Titan or CDPoker, and yet its the same network and in the case of the freerolls, the very same players.

Does anyone else experience this ?

Same for me. I do best on Carbon and Bodog. I think it's because both of those sites have casinos attached and you get "gamblers" drifting over to try their hand at poker. But one thing I notice is, once a site gets a reputation as fishy, especially if it's a smaller site like Carbon, more solid players start moving in and, after awhile, it's not so easy any more. I play low stakes at Carbon and am seeing the same players over and over; they're not there to lose money.

I've always had trouble on FullTilt. It's not that the players are trickier, it's just that many are tight. I think there are a lot of multi-tablers who don't speculate or chase much. I found it really hard to get paid off for big hands on FullTilt, and could just never get ahead there.

Having said that, every table is unique. Every time you sit down, regardless of site, you have to get a feel for the table. Are there action junkies who just love pushing pots whether they have a hand or not? They tend to infect a table and make it very expensive to take any draws. My favorite players are, of course, the loose passive ones who never raise but who call a lot with speculative hands. At some tables, you can three-bet the button then, if the flop is unraised, take the pot 90% of the time with pot-sized bet. Just a month or two ago I was doing that quite a bit at Carbon. Now it's not working as often. Either they are on to me, or I'm running into players who are capable of trapping or, possibly, action junkies.

At some tables, you might be able to do a lot of limping if you like that sort of thing (why would you?). At others you need to be bolder if you want to be in the game. Bottom line is to just adapt to the table conditions wherever you play, don't get stuck in a rut. Pay attention to what's going on and figure out how you're going to take advantage of it. It's a mistake to stick with a certain style, or to even try to develop one.

But I do like to pay where I seem to do best which, for now, is Bodog or carbon.

Keep in mind, though, I'm probably not a very good player. Usually when I post advice I get a lot of people correcting me saying "that's not quite right." Once I get my ego out of the way, I pay attention and try to learn. But I never get anybody saying "great post!".

Gary

GREAT POST! Or does that make me not such a good player either?

Sure there may be appreciable differences overall between one site and another.But at any given site, any given day, any given table, you'll find a mixed bag. You take careful notes and make your adjustments. My boyfriend is not very interested in seeing hands he's not involved in, busy at 2 tables. I wanna see what some idiot was pre-flopping, calling, or raising with (and by how much).

That said, I've had very good luck at Carbon. Some of the worst players anywhere (generally speaking), but that might be changing. I also have good luck at FT, and NO luck whatsoever at PS. No idea why, since both sites are similarly highly regarded. Just that I ger NO cards at all at PS. I mean NONE. Okay, rarely. But it's so bad, I now think that some accts at inception here are tagged to lose.

I've done OK at Doyle's Room and somewhat at Ultimate. Not at Absolute - which is fine, as their time clock (allowing 60 - 90 seconds) is excruciating.

I have to disagree about the worst players being on Carbon.

Absolute has more donkeys than Blackpool beach, and VC has to be seen to be believed.

Absolute classic I saw a while back

Board shows a full house

AAAKK

And he called an all in bet... He was holding a pair of QQs

There's alway's of course the off chance (less chance in holdem than omaha obviously) that someone has the last ace. But maybe he thought someone was just trying to pull a fast one 'to see if some moron would fold'.

Oh, Absolute....yeah, that too!!! Second to none maybe.

Depending on the situation, maybe that's not such a bad call. If the pot is big, he already has a lot invested and not much left to lose, sure, I'd call that bet. I'm not sure how he got that far to begin with that he's be in the hand all the way to the river with aces and kings showing, but he's there, a bet is made and there are only two things that can beat him: quad aces or quad kings. Otherwise the board is showing the nut fullhouse and the only way the guy is going to get his investment back is to call. In fact, if I were leading out and I had the queens, depending on my read I might very well pressure bet all in, hoping that you would think it were a donk move to call. I might lose, so my action would depend on the pot dynamics. But a strong bet might get me the whole pot rather than just half.

So, I'm the donk that would call your bet with just queens. Let me have it. Tell me why that's wrong.
Gary